You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/10/07 10:40:31 UTC
[jira] Created: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in
ASF repo as testing resources
Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: LEGAL-64
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
Project: Legal Discuss
Issue Type: Question
Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
(http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
tester class as part of the default tests.
The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
is the Artistic License 1.0:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
>From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
the website.
So:
1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
(and in derivate distributed packages)?
2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
(NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
folder where I'll copy them?).
PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [jira] Created: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by natalia34love <na...@yandex.ru>.
Hello!
I am glad that you are interested in me and wrote me e-mail. I shall be very glad if you write to me and the other letters. I do not long ago started to look for love through the Internet, and I do not know much about him.
It was very difficult for me to place my structure in the service of acquaintances, because I'm in Russia, servicing acquaintances does not accept members from that country. In this letter, I will give you some information on their own and if the dialogue with me will be
interesting to you, I'll tell about me directly in more detail in the following letter. My name Nataliya, my age 33 years. I have a job and I am engaged in sports. I am very romantic woman also try to make my life interesting. My dream is to meet in my life, a good man who can understand me and love.
I am sending you a photo of me, and I ask that you send me some pictures of your life. Since it will be interesting to me to learn about his life, family, work and play. Write to me, I will wait for your letter.
I hope that in his letters, you tell me about yourself. For me, I would like to know you better. I ask you about what you would respond to my letters sincerely, because I really like the sincerity and truth! Since I heard about that a lot of online fraud.
I do not want to be mistaken in you, I want a genuine human communication.
Sincerely and truly yours. Nataliya !!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [jira] Created: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by natalia34love <na...@yandex.ru>.
Hello! Have a good day. I waited your letter and was very happy when you sent me. Your structure and I have been interesting to me glad that we begin to learn each other more well and to develop Our acquaintance. I think this is an interesting thing to learn someone Far through the Internet. It is unusual for me because I am somewhat familiar with the Internet, I wish to inform you that I have no computer at home as I enter the Internet - cafe, in free time from work. That To translate my letters to you, I use an electronic translator program, because since I was faster and more convenient to write to you in Russian language and then translate the letter in English.
And I respect your zyka, I know him. I can speak and fall on it, but for me much easier and more convenient to use an interpreter.
I hope that you are not against it.
Now I'm lonely, I do not have any man now. I have never been married. I have no children.
You're lonely??
I hope that you can understand well my letters. I studied the English language Earlier at school, and then in college and I understand your letters very well. Just please do not use Reductions of words. While I did not install the computer in the house, so what I am not there phone. I would be interested to talk with you and if you do not mind, I could in the future try to call you, that we could talk about different things. I want to tell you that it is - a bit about yourself. I live in the village Kuyar it is in Russia.
And I have a very good family. Because of my work I take a small apartment, and I live in this separate from my family. But I often reach for them and I spend weekends with them. We often we have chosen together on a camping and we have other entertainment. The deposit is not a city
large size, and this is a little people. Most of us in different factories and mills. Present. Some restaurant and bar. City was not built tall buildings of 3-5 floors. I
friends often travel by there to buy some things or
fashionable clothes. I work in the hospital, my work
What I care about patients, and I give them medicine. Tell me about the job. It is pleasant to you? To me My work is pleasant. I love to laugh, and I respect people with good humor. I like to travel. I still was not far from the field at home, but I dream in the future to visit in different places. I 2-3 times during the week going to be busy in the gym, keep my body in the order. And you have some sports in life? You love Entertainment on nature? Hunting? fishing? Camping? Some tell me things about the entertainment. It will be very interesting to me to find out about it.
In my hope that my letter of interest to you. Because I spend a lot of time to write to you.
I have no men on this I'll give you a lot of time.
I hope you appreciate this and just going to tell me in detail about myself, about how you spend the day.
I am waiting for your letters. Sincerely Nataliya !!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [jira] Created: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
2009/10/7 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Stefano Bagnara (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
>
> Are you referring to this message?
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200910.mbox/%3C9426afb70910061027l1997f4fflce5eb965f0ac8fd6@mail.gmail.com%3E
Well, then it passes :-)
My first message was from a non @apache.org address, then that one
from the right address passes but maybe I never received the message
back from the list to me so I thought I had issue with the list.
Sorry for the duplicate message, but anyway it won't hurt to have it
recorded in JIRA!
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [jira] Created: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by natalia34love <na...@yandex.ru>.
Hello!
I am glad that you are interested in me and wrote me e-mail. I shall be very glad if you write to me and the other letters. I do not long ago started to look for love through the Internet, and I do not know much about him.
It was very difficult for me to place my structure in the service of acquaintances, because I'm in Russia, servicing acquaintances does not accept members from that country. In this letter, I will give you some information on their own and if the dialogue with me will be
interesting to you, I'll tell about me directly in more detail in the following letter. My name Nataliya, my age 33 years. I have a job and I am engaged in sports. I am very romantic woman also try to make my life interesting. My dream is to meet in my life, a good man who can understand me and love.
I am sending you a photo of me, and I ask that you send me some pictures of your life. Since it will be interesting to me to learn about his life, family, work and play. Write to me, I will wait for your letter.
I hope that in his letters, you tell me about yourself. For me, I would like to know you better. I ask you about what you would respond to my letters sincerely, because I really like the sincerity and truth! Since I heard about that a lot of online fraud.
I do not want to be mistaken in you, I want a genuine human communication.
Sincerely and truly yours. Nataliya !!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [jira] Created: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Stefano Bagnara (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
Are you referring to this message?
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200910.mbox/%3C9426afb70910061027l1997f4fflce5eb965f0ac8fd6@mail.gmail.com%3E
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Stefano Bagnara (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12804966#action_12804966 ]
>
> Stefano Bagnara commented on LEGAL-64:
> --------------------------------------
>
> Guys, you always tell that we should not pursue general categorization or generic answers to licensing issues. Here I was just asking if we can use Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" for our jDKIM test suite.
+1
> You talk about "borderline between category A and category B" but I'm not experienced enough with how that categories maps to "data" (and not source code or binary code). Previosly you said "Category A but not for Object code or Executables", so I would interpret this as a YES as the "data" i refer to is mainly composed of "mime messages" (email).
>
> So unless anyone object I'll take this as a YES.
+1
> Can you also tell me if a "classic" reference in the NOTICE file and appending the Artistic license to the *source* distribution LICENSE file (tests are not in the binary distributions) is required/OK/enough/not required.
>
> Again, unless someone will object I will take that we have to add it to NOTICE (attribution clause) and to LICENSE (as we do everytime something we ship includes some non apache licensed "stuff")
+1
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
Interested in other's thoughts on this one.
Also feeling energetic and ready for this year's discussion on
allowing MPL/Artistic/EPL/CDDL licensed source code.
Hen
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Henri Yandell (JIRA) <ji...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12799109#action_12799109 ]
>
> Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-64:
> ------------------------------------
>
> [apologies for rambling below... trying to consider this generically before retreating to specifics]
>
> Yes - both Larry Rosen's and Heather Meeker's books discuss the license a little. Reading them, I don't recall feeling any desire to change the above opinion - i.e. borderline between Category A and Category B. In many ways it feels like a license for Perl and not for Perl libraries - one of the classic examples of all the people choosing a license for a non-planned use case.
>
> One thing that might be worth doing is looking at Artistic 2.0. a) Projects that are licensed under 'the same terms as Perl' could be Artistic 2.0 for all we know as it could be argued that Perl 6 is under that license, while b) it would help cement the intent of the earlier license.
>
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php
>
> I think this is closer to a weak copyleft. It's still much weaker than the usual weak copyleft license due to the Perl executable focused conditions (4b in this case) being a permissive like work-around for non-executable code (i.e. all the CPAN libraries). 4a is weak copyleft back to the author, 4c is weak copyleft to the user.
>
> As with other classic category B weak copyleft the conditions end up, if we ignore the executable hack, as:
>
> * Document modifications
> * License modifications under original license when distributing
>
> Objections would be:
>
> * Possibility of an Apache project doing substantial development in something other than AL 2.0.
> * Surprise to a user that part of the project has modification conditions.
>
> ---
>
> Upshot is - I can't quite convince myself to treat this as Category A. Ideally I'd like to have us agree on a way to remove the binary-only part of clause B (or some of clause B) and declare a process on handling modifications. Alternatively I'm happy if others are preferring to consider this item as a specific use case to approve it as it is.
>
>> Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Key: LEGAL-64
>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
>> Project: Legal Discuss
>> Issue Type: Question
>> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>>
>> I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
>> project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
>> library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
>> (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
>> in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
>> tester class as part of the default tests.
>> The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
>> is the Artistic License 1.0:
>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
>> From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
>> kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
>> language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
>> the website.
>> So:
>> 1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
>> (and in derivate distributed packages)?
>> 2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
>> (NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
>> folder where I'll copy them?).
>> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
>
> --
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> -
> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12799109#action_12799109 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-64:
------------------------------------
[apologies for rambling below... trying to consider this generically before retreating to specifics]
Yes - both Larry Rosen's and Heather Meeker's books discuss the license a little. Reading them, I don't recall feeling any desire to change the above opinion - i.e. borderline between Category A and Category B. In many ways it feels like a license for Perl and not for Perl libraries - one of the classic examples of all the people choosing a license for a non-planned use case.
One thing that might be worth doing is looking at Artistic 2.0. a) Projects that are licensed under 'the same terms as Perl' could be Artistic 2.0 for all we know as it could be argued that Perl 6 is under that license, while b) it would help cement the intent of the earlier license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-2.0.php
I think this is closer to a weak copyleft. It's still much weaker than the usual weak copyleft license due to the Perl executable focused conditions (4b in this case) being a permissive like work-around for non-executable code (i.e. all the CPAN libraries). 4a is weak copyleft back to the author, 4c is weak copyleft to the user.
As with other classic category B weak copyleft the conditions end up, if we ignore the executable hack, as:
* Document modifications
* License modifications under original license when distributing
Objections would be:
* Possibility of an Apache project doing substantial development in something other than AL 2.0.
* Surprise to a user that part of the project has modification conditions.
---
Upshot is - I can't quite convince myself to treat this as Category A. Ideally I'd like to have us agree on a way to remove the binary-only part of clause B (or some of clause B) and declare a process on handling modifications. Alternatively I'm happy if others are preferring to consider this item as a specific use case to approve it as it is.
> Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-64
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
> project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
> library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
> (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
> in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
> tester class as part of the default tests.
> The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
> is the Artistic License 1.0:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
> From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
> kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
> language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
> the website.
> So:
> 1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
> (and in derivate distributed packages)?
> 2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
> (NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
> folder where I'll copy them?).
> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792798#action_12792798 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-64:
------------------------------------
Apologies for this issue not having been replied to.
Perl licensing is at http://dev.perl.org/licenses/ - namely Perl is dual licensed under GPL v1+, or Artistic License (of which there a few versions, 1, 1-perl, 1-clarified and 2.... this appears to unsurprisingly be 1-perl).
Oddly, we don't appear to have yet looked at the artistic license. Looking at the Perl Artistic License (what I call 1-perl above) clauses:
1. Attribution clause. Fine.
2. Patches clause. Interesting, but not a big deal.
3. Source distribution/modification clause - notice required in source and restriction on distribution which make this a weak copyleft license.
4. Binary distribution clause - not applicable in this case, or in most cases of the license (CPAN packages).
5. Not claiming product as your own/charging for the software clause. Not a big deal.
6. Not copyleft to input/output clause. Unnecessary clause imo.
7. Not copyleft to perl/C that links to this. Wonderful - language specific item.
8. Do not endorse clause. Not a big deal.
9. NO WARRANTY clause. Fine.
So interesting items:
Clause 3a contains weak copyleft. From our direct point of view not a problem - releasing our changes under AL 2.0 would satisfy this, however our users do not expect to see such restrictions on our software. This would usually make this category B (binary only). Clause 3b is a non-event, as is 3d; however 3c is so Perl specific as to make the Artistic License 1.0 into a permissive and not weak-copyleft license. Fine... test data, we will "remove any non-standard executables"... which is none.
I'm very interested in others opinions on 3a vs 3c. I'll also check various texts on Monday (I keep them at work) to see if they discuss this.
Clause 7 looks like weak copyleft, but the only copyleft clause being weakened is for object code or executables. Does it make a difference that we are in Java? I don't think so. Again I'll check texts in case it's discussed, but my read on this is that a) it would be fine to infer this means other languages and b) it's a no-op clause anyway as the only item is not relevant to the use case.
I think this is okay as a Category A license ('like Apache'), but it would be closest license in there to Category B ('binary only'). Possibly it's Category A but not for Object code or Executables; which is barely going to affect us.
Let's see what others say.
> Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-64
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
> project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
> library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
> (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
> in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
> tester class as part of the default tests.
> The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
> is the Artistic License 1.0:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
> From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
> kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
> language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
> the website.
> So:
> 1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
> (and in derivate distributed packages)?
> 2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
> (NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
> folder where I'll copy them?).
> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12806815#action_12806815 ]
Stefano Bagnara commented on LEGAL-64:
--------------------------------------
Sam Ruby answered "+1" (YES) on legal-discuss. I'm taking this as the second opinion we were looking for and I'm going to commit the data to svn.
Hope this issue will be marked as resolved, soon :-)
> Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-64
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
> project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
> library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
> (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
> in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
> tester class as part of the default tests.
> The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
> is the Artistic License 1.0:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
> From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
> kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
> language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
> the website.
> So:
> 1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
> (and in derivate distributed packages)?
> 2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
> (NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
> folder where I'll copy them?).
> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12804967#action_12804967 ]
Stefano Bagnara commented on LEGAL-64:
--------------------------------------
If my interpretation is correct, please mark this issue as resolved. (if you think we need also a generic answer about Artistic license and about category B wrt non-binary-objects I'd prefer a new JIRA to be opened for that)
> Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-64
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
> project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
> library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
> (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
> in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
> tester class as part of the default tests.
> The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
> is the Artistic License 1.0:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
> From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
> kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
> language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
> the website.
> So:
> 1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
> (and in derivate distributed packages)?
> 2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
> (NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
> folder where I'll copy them?).
> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12795210#action_12795210 ]
Stefano Bagnara commented on LEGAL-64:
--------------------------------------
Henri, did you have any chance to look at your texts?
> Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-64
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
> project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
> library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
> (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
> in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
> tester class as part of the default tests.
> The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
> is the Artistic License 1.0:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
> From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
> kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
> language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
> the website.
> So:
> 1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
> (and in derivate distributed packages)?
> 2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
> (NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
> folder where I'll copy them?).
> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12805787#action_12805787 ]
Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-64:
------------------------------------
The comment on not pursuing general categorization is when we're having an argument about the general case but agree on the individual case. I'm not sure my having an argument with myself really counts :) Really hoping for a 2nd opinion on this given that I think it's borderline - Artistic is either categorized as a badly worded Weak Copyleft, or a Permissive with strong trademark concerns.
I'll ping on the list to see if anyone would like to share an opinion. I don't think there's a difference between the general and individual questions here - all versions of the Artistic license have a hole a mile wide on the copyleft terms, and the question is whether its intended to be able to use that or not.
> Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-64
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
> project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
> library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
> (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
> in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
> tester class as part of the default tests.
> The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
> is the Artistic License 1.0:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
> From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
> kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
> language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
> the website.
> So:
> 1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
> (and in derivate distributed packages)?
> 2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
> (NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
> folder where I'll copy them?).
> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
[jira] Commented: (LEGAL-64) Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data"
in ASF repo as testing resources
Posted by "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12804966#action_12804966 ]
Stefano Bagnara commented on LEGAL-64:
--------------------------------------
Guys, you always tell that we should not pursue general categorization or generic answers to licensing issues. Here I was just asking if we can use Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" for our jDKIM test suite.
You talk about "borderline between category A and category B" but I'm not experienced enough with how that categories maps to "data" (and not source code or binary code). Previosly you said "Category A but not for Object code or Executables", so I would interpret this as a YES as the "data" i refer to is mainly composed of "mime messages" (email).
So unless anyone object I'll take this as a YES.
Can you also tell me if a "classic" reference in the NOTICE file and appending the Artistic license to the *source* distribution LICENSE file (tests are not in the binary distributions) is required/OK/enough/not required.
Again, unless someone will object I will take that we have to add it to NOTICE (attribution clause) and to LICENSE (as we do everytime something we ship includes some non apache licensed "stuff")
> Artistic License 1.0 licensed "data" in ASF repo as testing resources
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LEGAL-64
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-64
> Project: Legal Discuss
> Issue Type: Question
> Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>
> I wrote a DKIM library (email authentication) in Java for the James
> project. Now I was expanding the test cases and found that the perl
> library named "Mail-DKIM" includes a good corpus of signed messages
> (http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-DKIM/). I'd like to add them "as is"
> in our test/resources folder so that they can be processed by a java
> tester class as part of the default tests.
> The library itself claims the license is the same of Perl 5.8.6, so it
> is the Artistic License 1.0:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
> From my understanding there should be no harm in redistributing this
> kind of "data" (they are email messages, mime messages, and not some
> language code) in apache packages, but I didn't find a clear answer on
> the website.
> So:
> 1) Are we allowed to include them in our src/test/resources folder
> (and in derivate distributed packages)?
> 2) If "yes": where am I supposed to write their "origin"/"license"?
> (NOTICE/LICENSE/README? In the root of cvs or the src/test/resources
> folder where I'll copy them?).
> PS: I open this jira issue because it seems my messages do not pass through the legal-discuss list anymore (investigating on this).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org